New Offense?

Who wants to see us move back to a more traditional offense? Just curious to see everyones take...

  • Yay

    Votes: 29 12.8%
  • Nay

    Votes: 198 87.2%

  • Total voters
    227

Rock

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
615
The data doesn't support this observation. On the whole (that is, more than one cherry picked year of 2007), our recruiting with a different O was worse than it is now.

I asked how many rule out GT before being offered or looked at.

That we will never know.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,026
I asked how many rule out GT before being offered or looked at.

That we will never know.

I was responding to the overall suggestion that we'd recruit better with a different offense. This question doesn't pertain.

We also will never know how many who said that they don't like the offense didn't qualify academically.
 

Rock

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
615
I was responding to the overall suggestion that we'd recruit better with a different offense. This question doesn't pertain.

We also will never know how many who said that they don't like the offense didn't qualify academically.

then those don't matter anyway. but I see what you are trying to do .
 

sidewalkGTfan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,276
I have said for several years that we have to have other formations or schemes when the TO isn't working or in obvious passing situations. I sat at the UGA game with a gentleman that played in the ACC and for several years in the pros and he also said we need to have a plan B offense to change things up. I love our offense but we need to have other options. Pun intended
I get what you're saying and sorta agree about the obvious passing situations but how many other teams have a "Plan B?" If we are struggling to run our bread and butter offense, you think we can go to our "secondary" offense and succeed? Does Clemson, UGAg, UNC, VT, FSU, etc. have a plan B? I'm not sure what a Plan B would look like? Keeping in mind, that practice time in college is very limited.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,237
After noticing OP's handle, I remembered the offense we had back in 2006.

Then I remembered why I never want to see that on Grant Field ever again.

The two best offenses (IMO) at GT since I became a fan were Ralph Friedgen's offense, and CPJ's offense.

The come denominator? They both utilized the option.
 

techdad

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
104
I get what you're saying and sorta agree about the obvious passing situations but how many other teams have a "Plan B?" If we are struggling to run our bread and butter offense, you think we can go to our "secondary" offense and succeed? Does Clemson, UGAg, UNC, VT, FSU, etc. have a plan B? I'm not sure what a Plan B would look like? Keeping in mind, that practice time in college is very limited.
A plan B would be anything from having a shotgun formation or sets that have up to 4 receivers. It is possible to run the option with 3 receivers. We always deploy 2 A backs as receivers and I don't care who you are, they can't run routes as good as a receiver. There is plenty of time to develop a more broad offense with the players at practice. It isn't that difficult.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,220
A plan B would be anything from having a shotgun formation or sets that have up to 4 receivers. It is possible to run the option with 3 receivers. We always deploy 2 A backs as receivers and I don't care who you are, they can't run routes as good as a receiver. There is plenty of time to develop a more broad offense with the players at practice. It isn't that difficult.
We have 4 receivers, 5 if you count the Bback, every single play.
 

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,447
The two best offenses (IMO) at GT since I became a fan were Ralph Friedgen's offense, and CPJ's offense.

The come denominator? They both utilized the option.

Both were/are great, but I think Friedgen did a better job of adjusting to his current players and adjusting based on the defensive looks than PJ does. With PJ it's much more of a system. We're going to run the thing a certain way, and everyone is going to practice until they get it right. When they do, it's incredible to watch...when they don't, it can look really bad. Fortunately for us, the former has been the case more often than the latter, and I really enjoy watching it. I do, however, wish we did a better job to adjusting to our players' strengths and weaknesses.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,237
I think @techdad means true WR, not AB running routes...

I think CPJ has been trying to recruit more athletes/multi-purpose guys at the AB position specifically to become more flexible in the passing game. That's why we're seeing more guys like Nathan Cottrell, Clinton Lynch, Qua Searcy, Omarhi Jarrett, Xavier Gant as opposed to the Embry Peebles, Roddy Jones, Kirvonte Benson type "pure" RBs.
 

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,447
I do wish we had a better 2-minute offense. I don't care if that involves the shotgun, 3-4 WR sets or whatever. I know we've done pretty well at times in that situation, but I think more often than not, we don't look very good when we MUST score in two minutes. Scoring in two minutes when there's 13 minutes left in the half and scoring in 2 minutes when there's 2:15 left in the half are a little different.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,220
I do wish we had a better 2-minute offense. I don't care if that involves the shotgun, 3-4 WR sets or whatever. I know we've done pretty well at times in that situation, but I think more often than not, we don't look very good when we MUST score in two minutes. Scoring in two minutes when there's 13 minutes left in the half and scoring in 2 minutes when there's 2:15 left in the half are a little different.
We were pretty darn good at it in '14. The Uga, Ga So and VT games come to mind right away. Even though we lost, we had a nice 2-min attack in the ACCCG.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,996
I know we've done pretty well at times in that situation, but I think more often than not, we don't look very good when we MUST score in two minutes.

This is going to be the same with ANY type of offense. If a team's offense was extremely effective at scooting down the field and scoring in 2:15, then they would not need to score at the end of the game to win. Many commentators like to say that GT's offense isn't built for 3rd down and long to go. Last year I believe we were ranked #1 in 3rd and 7 or greater.
 

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,447
This is going to be the same with ANY type of offense. If a team's offense was extremely effective at scooting down the field and scoring in 2:15, then they would not need to score at the end of the game to win. Many commentators like to say that GT's offense isn't built for 3rd down and long to go. Last year I believe we were ranked #1 in 3rd and 7 or greater.

Refute it all you want, but my eyes aren't lying. Many other teams are much better at the 2-minute offense than we are.

...and I didn't say anything about 3rd and long, but since you brought it up, yes...we were great last year on third and long. However, most of those plays involved jump balls or back shoulder throws to Smelter. This basically seems like our only answer to those situations. If we still had him, we might have looked better on third down this year. I guess we just have to wait until we get an NFL caliber receiver again to be good on third and long.
 

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,447
We were pretty darn good at it in '14. The Uga, Ga So and VT games come to mind right away. Even though we lost, we had a nice 2-min attack in the ACCCG.

We were, but I think 2014 was more of the exception rather than the rule. 2009 also comes to mind as a season where we were good at it. The common factor in both of those seasons is big NFL talented receivers. If we don't have those types of guys we don't look very good in the 2-minute offense or on third and 5+
 
Top